Transcription
It started as a picture-perfect blended family. A father brought his daughter to preschool, where he met a beautiful teacher. They started dating. She moved in, and the three of them became a family. And then, all that changed.
This is Scandal, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Sierra Gillespie. Today's episode is truly unlike any other case we've covered before. A four-year-old girl murdered and exploited in what should be the safety of her own home. Brutally killed by a person she was supposed to be able to trust. This is the case of Amber Lee Hughes and four-year-old Natada Jane Cholita.
Today's episode of Scandal takes us to South Africa, specifically Glen Vista, which is a suburb of Johannesburg. That's where Ellie Cholita lived with his daughter, Natada Jane. And you can tell by the pictures of them together, Ellie loved Natada Jane more than anything in the world.
In 2021, it was time for little Natada Jane to start prek. So, Ellie enrolled her in school. And at her school, he met his future girlfriend, a teacher, Amber Lee Hughes. And there was a spark between Amber Lee and Ellie almost right away. And they eventually started dating. It later got so serious that Amber Lee actually moved in with both Ellie and Natada Jane. And if you look at pictures from this time frame, they appear to be happy. In this photo, Amber Lee is smiling as Natada Jane embraces her. They look happy.
But as it is with many of the cases we cover here on Scandal, the pictures weren't all that they seemed. We see a smiling family, but behind closed doors, there was trouble in paradise. According to the National Prosecuting Authority, Ellie and Amber Lee were known to clash. The NPA called their relationship troubled, saying they had these arguments often. They were bickering both in person and then via text, too.
And all of this leads us to the fateful day of January 23rd, 2023. Ellie was out of town for a job interview, and Amber Lee was watching Natada Jane at their apartment at home. According to the Daily Mail, Amber Lee was angry at Ellie because he left the house without giving her a goodbye kiss. And according to News 24, she started arguing with him specifically about infidelity. Amber was mad that Ellie had apparently been cheating on her. At the time, she sent him this text: "You broke my heart. I'm going to burn yours. How could you do that to me?"
After getting that chilling text from Amber Lee, Ellie testified, "I felt my heart fall from my chest. I felt something was very wrong." Ellie told the court that Amber Lee had previously threatened hurting Natada Jane when they argued. He told the court she was jealous about me giving Natada Jane more attention and spending more money on her.
When the case eventually went to trial, the judge noted, "The accused, meaning Amber Lee, made the threat. She has the propensity to make violent threats. The objective evidence shows that after stopping communication with Mr. Chelita at 1635, Mr. Chelita continued sending the accused Amber Lee messages. She did not respond, but had read the messages." So, after getting that text from Amber Lee, Ellie texted back, pleading with her not to do something stupid and repeatedly asking her if Natada Jane was okay.
But she wasn't okay. Natada Jane was found floating in the bathtub of her home. A forensic pathologist later confirmed that Natada Jane died by asphyxiation. The judge later said, "The inference is irresistible that Amber Lee made the threat of burning Mr. Chelita's heart and made good on that threat. She did this by running the bath and filling it with sufficient water to achieve her goal. This must have happened immediately after." The inference is irresistible that as soon as Amber Lee made the threat, she set her plan in motion by running the water.
Amber Lee was quickly arrested and charged in Natada Jane's murder. Investigators also determined that Natada Jane had been assaulted around the time of the murder. Now, at first, Amber Lee pleaded not guilty to her charges. Her trial began on April 14th in Gouting High Court in Johannesburg. According to News 24, a verdict, or a judgment, as they say, was expected back in July. But in the final hour of trial, Amber Lee changed her plea from not guilty to guilty.
That's when Amber Lee admitted, "I killed Natada Jane by sitting on her, which had the result that she was submerged in the water. I admit that after the deceased did not respond, that I left her in the bathtub whilst the cold water tap was left running. The whole event was triggered by the fight I had with the deceased's father concerning his infidelity. And the final trigger was when he told me that I should stop bombarding him."
After this confession, the judge commented on the last-minute change of plea, saying, "Amber Lee has already committed perjury by lying under oath when she testified and denied murdering the deceased. She only made a belated admission to drowning the deceased after both parties have closed their cases."
Now, the judge also ruled that the court didn't have to go through any sort of evidence that Natada Jane had drowned accidentally. "The accused's latest admission is an admission that she drowned the deceased by sitting on top of her and further that the drowning caused the deceased's death. This set of admissions meets all the elements of murder." The only question mark for the judge was whether this murder of Natada Jane was premeditated, but ultimately, he decided that it was, and the burden of proof had been met.
On Thursday, Amber Lee Hughes was convicted on two of the three charges. She was found guilty of Natada Jane's murder and on one count of abuse against her. Natada Jane's father spoke out after the verdict, telling The Citizen, "Thank God today we had progress. That doesn't bring my child back. Nothing will bring her back." So, it's a feeling mixed of anger and relief. It's just mixed emotions.
He went on to say, "Obviously, I'm the parent of the child. The justice that I seek doesn't exist in this world or in this lifetime. We are all humans here. The judge is a human. No one can bring back what is lost. So, my real justice won't be in this lifetime or on this earth, but it starts here. And it officially started today by the judge finding her guilty. I'm feeling slightly better. I hope this feeling grows on me, but it also can never erase what happened to my child. The real and initial victim here is my child, who was a human with a name and a character of her own, and she was tortured to death. So, as much as I'm the victim, I'm not the 100% victim here."
I know I say this all the time, but this case, more than the others, really, it's so heartbreaking, and it's really tough to talk about the details. So, I want to thank our guest for coming on today and talking about it. It's criminal defense attorney Mauricio Padilla. Thank you for coming on with us today, Mauricio.
And I mean, what's hard about this one is not only is it a family member, you know, we have this person you're supposed to trust, essentially a stepmom who you live with, but it's a teacher who's around kids, and then to commit such a heinous crime. I mean, how do you wrap your head around a case like this?
Well, I mean, listen, one of the things that jumped out at me when I read the multiple articles that I reviewed was, I believe that she had threatened to do something to the child previously. So, when I heard that, I'm like, well, that means previous to you leaving her in her care, because that's the only way that I could rationalize that. And if that's the case, then imagine it's going to the father has to live with the decision that he made to leave her in the hands of somebody that was capable of something like this. Even though it's so horrific that I don't think anybody would ever envision that anyone could do that to a child, let alone someone that literally like raised that child because apparently she had been involved in this child's life for a long time. Additionally, taking care of children was her job. Like she was like a, what, a teacher, right? So, it's very hard to, you know, to wrap your head around something so horrific. Um, I, you know, listen, I've had to deal with cases that involved, you know, child fatalities and children as victims. This is one of the more horrific ones that I've heard in a long time.
I know when I was going through the details and having to look at it, it really is tough to go through. And something you pointed out, the fact that in the past, Amber Lee had made these threats about Natada Jane, saying, "I'm going to hurt her," basically, to her dad. And I think what's hard with this is when we're in the heat of a moment in an argument, I think almost all of us can say we've said something we shouldn't have said. You know, we've said something mean. But I think it takes it to the next level to threaten physical harm of a child. And I don't want to put blame on the father. He's dealing with more than enough as it is. But those red flags of her making these threats really to hurt this poor young girl, I mean, should they have been looked at closely?
I mean, I'm going to say yes. I'm going to say that that's completely out of the norm of anyone saying it in any capacity. So, if you threaten a young child, if you threaten a child with violence, that's something that needs to be immediately investigated, and you need to take measures to, you know, to protect that child. Uh, you know, listen, and I know that in situations that are this horrific that, um, governments or, you know, states, governments, wherever you're at, they like to blame the parent. So, I've seen similar situations where they're like, "Now, we're going to charge you because you didn't protect your child and you left her in the hands of someone that was capable of doing that." So, I'm sure that that avenue was at least investigated by the authorities where this occurred.
Um, listen, it's a very disturbing case. And it's also like the optics, the way she looks is disturbing. Like when you read the headlines of "evil teacher" and then you look at her, it looks like if she woke up in the morning and someone said, "Hey, I want you to dress up like an evil teacher, like all in black." I don't know what's going on with this lady, but she looks like a villain in a James Bond movie. This is like the optics are on another level. Like she really does look like an evil teacher. And I totally agree. When I was going through and looking at photos of her, too, I mean, maybe it's the fact that she's been convicted in this heinous crime, but she definitely, to your point, looks the part. She looks scary. She looks evil. And I know that's kind of crazy to say, but she has been convicted of one of the most heinous crimes we've ever even talked about. So, I guess that's somewhat fair to say.
And I do want to point out the father in all of this, Ellie, is going through probably, you know, the worst situation of all time. I'm sure he's carrying a lot of guilt with it. And the fact that he has to grieve and mourn and go through all of this, I don't wish that really on anyone, but he had to go through a pretty lengthy trial in all of this, too, right? It started back in April. Then eventually, we just had a judgment, as they call it, yesterday. And I'm wondering about this, too, because originally Amber Lee pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. Then the cases were presented, and then she had a change of plea kind of in the 11th hour. I mean, is that even allowed?
Well, I mean, listen, in almost every jurisdiction that I know of, you're able to change your plea at any moment because all courts are the same, whether you're in the United States, you know, South Africa, wherever you are. Judges, they don't want to work unless they really have to. So, they're always going to give you the opportunity to turn a not-guilty into a guilty because it's simple. And also, in any jurisdiction, you're there's a benefit if you claim responsibility at least at some point. You usually get more credit when you claim responsibility early on and you don't waste the government's time with a prolonged trial, but you still get some type of benefit. I'm not clear what the penalties are, what they could do to her. Um, but for instance, like if you're looking at the death penalty in the United States, and at some point you claim that you're guilty, that's one of the factors that they could take into consideration when trying to figure out if it's mitigating or not, or whether or not they're going to pursue the death penalty. I don't know in the jurisdiction where she's at if the death penalty is on the table, but I'm sure that her change of plea was designed to probably put her in a better situation for sentencing.
Number one, and number two, a lot of times you want your client to plead guilty because you know that you're not going to win, number one. And number two, you don't want to have this needless fact-based trial where now the judge is going to really get to see this evidence, see the forensic pictures of the dead four-year-old, see all this evidence that eventually he's the one that's going to sentence you. So, you want to at least shield your client from putting forth that evidence that's only going to hurt her in the eyes of the judge. So that's probably one of the factors that the court had to take into consideration.
And let me tell you something, judges, attorneys, wherever you are, whether it's here or over there, one of the things that you counsel your client is how to prepare yourself for court and how to look in court. So, trust me, that the conversation must have been had with this woman about earth tones. Do not. She looks like Wednesday. She looks like an adult version of Wednesday standing up. Yes. Yeah. So, trust me, somebody must have told this lady not to look like that, and she decided to go into court like that.
So, what do you think is the motivation for her to go into court looking like that, too? Because some of the outfits you're talking about, she has one, she looks like Wednesday's brother, Pugsley. She's in the stripes. In another one, she's in all black, and it looks like Halloween has come early. So, what's going on in her mind, if you could infer, because she pleaded not guilty originally?
Okay, it's very simple. It's like Manson carving an X into his forehead and going to trial, or the Manson followers shaving their head. It's like that's it. Like, you know you're going to lose, and now you're, you know what? You know what? I'm going to own the label of "evil teacher." I'm going to own it, and I'm going to be "evil teacher," and I'm going to walk in here, and I don't know. I mean, listen, at some point, you know, since I've done serious criminal litigation for 23 years, sometimes you got to step back and not you're never going to try and you can't figure out what these people are thinking because at the end of the day, they're not rational. Because at the end of the day, she sat on a four-year-old until the four-year-old couldn't breathe in the bathtub. So, you know, you can't try and figure out the rationale of someone that's capable of such a hideous crime. But it's very simple. If you're looking at life, death, as serious a case as you can, and you decide to go into court looking like that, it's because you don't care about the repercussions and you want to just fulfill whatever evil legacy you think you have, and you want to own the title of "evil teacher," which I think she's successfully done.
What's interesting about all of this too, especially when we're talking about the change of the plea, is that initially she went on the stand when she was doing her not-guilty plea, you know, said, "I didn't do it." Then she switches her plea. Okay. Yeah, actually, I am guilty. And the judge points this out. Okay, well, you perjured yourself now because originally you said you didn't do it. When you're changing your plea to guilty, that doesn't make sense then. You basically lied on the stand. I mean, that to me, whenever I hear perjury, first of all, it freaks me out. I don't want to ever get in a situation like that. What are your thoughts on all that?
Well, I mean, okay, in our system, when you plead not guilty, it's not under oath. You do it usually through your attorney, and it's not perjury because you didn't take the stand. Apparently, in her jurisdiction where they're currently litigating this, there was an evidentiary hearing where she testified, which you should never have your client testify if you can avoid it in any case, right? Excluding child sex cases where the jury's expecting your client to say that they didn't do it, and if your client doesn't testify, then you lose. But other than that, in my opinion, I don't think any defendant should ever testify. But apparently, maybe in their jurisdiction, you don't have that opportunity and you have to take the stand. The problem is this: if the judge already said, yeah, like, you know, you already perjured yourself, he's already letting her know you have zero credibility. And listen, I don't know, again, I don't know what the maximum penalty is, but I will be shocked if she doesn't get it. I mean, at the end of the day, I also don't know if judges in that jurisdiction are elected or appointed, but if they are elected, you are a politician at the end of the day. Like, people don't see judges as politicians, but anybody that has to depend on the public voting them in or out are politicians. And when you have an enormous amount of international pressure and all eyes in the world looking at you, you're going to try and do what you know people expect of you. So, I would be shocked if she doesn't get the maximum penalty.
And the maximum penalty, I did look this up, too, because obviously we're here in the United States. This is taking place in South Africa, so it's a little bit different. And death penalty not on the table for this case. It would be, you know, life in prison. And after the sentence were, excuse me, after the verdict was handed down, you know, she's guilty on two of the three charges. There's going to be kind of a long interim between now, August, and then eventually when she's sentenced in October, which was interesting to me because she faces the maximum, life behind bars. What are her attorneys, both sides, doing kind of preparing for this sentencing?
Well, I mean, listen, you're trying to get as much mitigating information as you can. You're trying to get mental health experts to opine that your client, you know, suffered from various psychiatric or psychological problems. And listen, at the end of the day, every single person that's ever killed somebody ever has something going on with them. That's it. Like, pretty much anybody that commits murder is not well, and they have psychological psychiatric problems. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a mitigating factor for the court to take into consideration. But when the judge told her, "You already perjured yourself," that's a problem because if this happens and you say to your, you come out straight out of the gate saying, "I'm sorry. I didn't know what I was doing. I suffer from mental illness." That's one thing. But if you're trying to get out of it and saying you didn't do it, and then you switch gears, then you really take the wind out of the sails of the mental health crisis argument of, "I was not in my right mind." It's just like, you're an evil person. You killed the kid, and you're trying to get out of it.
What's so odd to me about all of this, and again, I know the laws more here in the United States than I do in South Africa, but as I've done a bunch of international cases, I see there are a lot of similarities. And one of the things we have here, it's something like not guilty by reason of insanity or not guilty by reason of mental defect or disease. And she did straight admit, okay, yeah, I do suffer from borderline personality disorder, but also said, "Oh, I was aware of my actions." I mean, that's kind of conflicting to me, number one. But number two, I'm wondering why right from the jump she didn't plead guilty by reason or not, excuse me, not guilty by reason of insanity or something like that.
Right? Well, listen. I mean, people think that they can get out of it. People think that they have a defense. People, you know, they, a lot of people when they're charged with something as horrific, they refuse to admit it even to themselves. So, they're in a state of denial. Um, it really is an issue for her that she took that stance, that she perjured herself, and now the judge is looking at her saying, "Listen, I don't believe anything that you're saying." Um, and listen, to be found not guilty by reason of insanity in 2025, I'm not talking about 1980, 1985, where it was a little bit easier. In today's day and age, you got to show that you didn't know what you were doing. For instance, like in the United States, if you don't have like a history of being hospitalized for psychiatric reasons, meaning if you don't have like a two-week stay prior in a mental institution, you can forget about it. You're not going to get, a court is not going to find you not guilty by reason of insanity unless you have like a pedigreed mental health crisis that involves probably multiple hospitalizations for that mental illness. So, those people that commit a heinous crime and all of a sudden for the first time they're saying, "Oh, I have mental illness." That's not going to fly. So, and I think internationally, that's kind of where courts are. So, you know, she can have borderline personality disorder. You know, people have borderline personality disorders that are working or that are judges or that are police officers. But borderline personality disorder doesn't mean that you don't know the ramifications of your actions, which at some level, every single court in the world, if you're claiming that you're not responsible by reason of insanity, they're going to have to find that you were unaware of the ramifications of your actions.
Exactly. The insanity is so tricky to prove. And I loved your last point when you were talking about how many people suffer from some sort of mental disease, defect, whatever it is, and they're still going about their lives. They're coping with it. They're going to therapy. They're on medication, whatever it is, and they're not killing a four-year-old girl who they're supposed to be taking care of. I mean, there's a main, main difference here. I'm looking forward to sent—
Sorry. She told him, "I'm going to burn your heart."
There you go. Like, that's not insanity. That's like, I'm telling you, I'm going to burn your heart. So, what's the best way of doing that? I'm going to kill your kid. Like, that's the number one way you're going to ruin his life, burn his heart, is by murdering the thing that he loves the most.
No, I was going to say, I mean, I think we're just both so invested in this case because then you have it right there in writing that you have she's saying she's going to do that. To me, it's showing premeditation then, too, because she's saying, "I'm going to burn your heart. This is what I'm going to do." I mean, that was a question actually for the judge, too. He said, "Okay, I got to consider this. Was it premeditated? Was it heat of the moment? Was it a snap decision?" I'm thinking that it was. And eventually, she was convicted. Does that show premeditation to you?
Super premeditation. I mean, that's like pre-premeditation per se. Like, literally, you said you were going to do it, and then you did it. Premeditation in this country could be from one minute to the next. Like, you know, you don't need to think about it for a day or two. You could, the case law and the courts have determined that that premeditation could be as quick as one minute, like immediately. So, somebody like her that had time to think about what she was doing, you know, she had more than enough time to plan it out, and she told him in advance she was going to do it. So, that's clear evidence of premeditation, and I think the court already found that there was premeditation from the article that I read, if I'm not mistaken. The court already made that finding.
They did. Yes. It was, I think it was a question mark for a second for the judge. And then easily, when we look at that text message, or when we talk about the testimony from the father saying, yes, Amber Lee in the past had threatened Natada Jane, I mean, it's premeditation 101, as you said.
And this case, it's just so tough to talk about. I mean, you and I are both clearly very passionate about it. We could talk about it for an hour. The intricacies of it are just so crazy. It's so sad. And I hate that we have to report on something so just devastating. Mauricio Padilla, thank you for coming on and sharing your insight with us.
Thank you so much. I hope that this is some form of justice and closure for Natada Jane's family. And they may also have a chance to speak out once again at Amber Lee Hughes's sentencing, which is set for October 27th. And that's where today's episode of Scandal leaves us. Make sure you subscribe to our channel for all the latest in the world of true crime. And you can reach us too at scandalawandcrime.com for any tips or future episode ideas. Thanks for watching today's episode. I'm your host Sierra Gillespie, and I'll see you next time.